100 Years Old And Still Going Strong

" Have you heard of the wonderful one-hoss shay, That was built in such a logical way It ran a hundred years to the day?" Oliver Wendell Holmes

As they search for the high-tech fountain of youth, gerontologists should remember the one-hoss shay of Dr. Holmes, the 19th-century Boston physician and man of letters.

A recent series of articles in The Courant reported that scientists may soon be able to alter the aging process, extending physical and mental agilities of youth well into mid-life.

Who could object to improving the quality of the life of the aged? Too often, people begin to fade at about retirement age and then linger painfully after they reach 70 or 80, bedridden and beyond reach.

But what good would come if drugs, diets and exercise added decades to the normal lifespan without ameliorating the ending? People might be vigorous into their 80s or 90s and then languish until death took them at 100 or 110. In other words, it's important also to think of what happens at the end, whether at age 75 or 105.

Researchers have made a remarkable start in understanding the aging process. One group of men in their 60s who were given human-growth hormone for a year regained much of their youthful strength. Flabby muscles hardened, fat melted and some of the diseases of the elderly seemed to be postponed. The hormone apparently reactivated the body's anti-aging gene so that the men lived younger longer.

Most elderly people die of cancer or heart disease, much of it brought on by bad habits such as smoking or eating the wrong foods or not exercising. Just eliminating such behavior could add a decade or more to many lives. Hormone-replacement therapy and basic manipulations of the genetic controls on aging could add 40 or 50 years to the average lifespan while keeping the mind sharp.

That's amazing and pleasing. Yet merely prolonging life is no end in itself.

Some social scientists and government experts worry about how they would cope with a significantly older society. What would people do for 40 or 50 years of retirement? Many in the new youthful aged population, of course, wouldn't stop working until 85 or after. Would our economic system be prepared to cope with the

consequences? Would there be enough job and promotion opportunities for young people? Who would pay to keep Social Security and retirement funds solvent?

And would longevity mean extra years of happiness or would the vast army of old people be an unhappy burden to their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grand-children?

Undoubtedly, the extra time could give people many more opportunities to become renaissance men and women, and to apply their knowledge. But at the end of the line, we suspect today's problems will remain. Should, for example, the average 110-year-old have the right to die with dignity of truly natural causes -- to climb aboard that one-hoss shay for a quick passage to the other side?